USA Electoral College 2004

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2001
USA Electoral College 2004
59
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 5:30pm
Dear IVillagers,

Nothing would please me more than eliminating the Electoral College system,

and having a "one person equals one vote" system,

to reflect exactly the votes of USA citizens.

Nonetheless, as IVillage cl-Libraone has noted here on IVillage,

that Colorado has the option to vote into law that Colorado's Electoral College votes be 'split' between the candidates- proportioned to be much more a reflection of voter's

actual votes.



Colorado's system shall be better than the present mess,

and would go into effect this election, if passed by Colorado voters-

my hope is that this does indeed happen, Election 2004 !!!

ForeverHugs,

--Genietowner

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Thu, 10-14-2004 - 7:30pm


But you're presuming those states are all going to vote in one homogenous block. Each state's electoral vote is going to represent their own electorate, the issues that matter to them, etc.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Thu, 10-14-2004 - 8:02pm
"Yep. For myself, I'm still waiting to hear how allowing a handful of states to dictate to the rest of the country who the president and vice president will be is a "fair" manner of deciding such things.

~mark~"

So long as he/she thinks it'll get her/his guy elected, it's fair. Now, if the roles become reversed, that E.C. will mostly become very important in maintaining fairness.

NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Thu, 10-14-2004 - 8:50pm
Irrelevant? Not hardly. Remember "population density" from a previous post? Once again, you're advocating a policy which would result in a very few states being able to control the election. So long as there are such political entities such as states, their existance and possible control of national elections will continue to be VERY relevant.

>>>"Dictating to the rest of the country isn't how I look at it, it is the evening out of influence that is important."<<<

Two things there... first, it's a question of your personal perspective, not an objective view of the issue. And second, your idea wouldn't "even out" anything, it would in fact lead to more disparity and unfair influence by higher population area's over those with lower population. By doing away with the E.C. you would in one stroke allow a handful of high-population states to dictate the terms of the election. Just exactly how does that even anything out for the country as a whole?

"But if you think that a state like Alaska should have the same effect on an election as California or Texas or Florida then there is no sense in taking this dicussion any further because that is the most illogical thing I've heard of in a long time."

Ah, when you can't argue against the point argue against something which isn't being stated or in existance.

I've never at any time stated that states like Alaska should have (or for that matter do have) the same effect on the election as California, Texas, or Florida. You just pulled that argument out of thin air. What I have stated (and as is borne out by the E.C. values of the states in question) is that those states with lower populations are given somewhat higher E.C. values, while substantially higher population states have somewhat lower values than pure population would indicate.

If you're going to try and refute my observations, at least pick observations or claims I've actually made.

"The way I see it every state would have an equal influence in the sense that each person in that state would have a vote that counted the same as each person in any other state."

Precisely. And create a situation where a few highly populated states control the results of the national elections. Your way might well be more fair ONLY if the country was evenly distributed population wise, or if states didn't exist. But it's not, and they do.

Try looking at the big picture as a whole instead of just your particular individual-based perspective of it.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Thu, 10-14-2004 - 8:54pm
Splum is apparently only interested in his or her personal value in an election. The larger issues, such as those of equitable representation of the states or the people of those states as well as as a whole, come in a distant second.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Thu, 10-14-2004 - 9:00pm
Just like Bush did in 2000 with Florida?
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Thu, 10-14-2004 - 10:47pm
How much talk do you hear about rural concerns in this election now?

The people in those areas still have representation in congress to address their concerns.

The difference in perspective is that I think the importance of the people is greater than the importance of a geographical district.

I have a sympathy for those who live off the beaten path, so to speak, that they might not get a lot of attention in an election for president, but not to the point that I think their vote should count more than someone who lives in a large city or a suburb.

Remember we're not talking about 1.2 or 1.3 to 1 we're talking about 3 to 1. I don't know why a disparity as large as that should be thought of as in any way fair.

What if you lived in a rural area in a state such as Texas which still has a large overall population, would you think it would be fair for someone who lived in a city such as Providence Rhode Island to have a vote that counted three times as much as yours?


Edited 10/14/2004 11:34 pm ET ET by splum2004

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Thu, 10-14-2004 - 10:52pm
I'm not assuming that at all, they can vote however they want, that's not what the issue is. It is how much each persons vote counts, whether it is an urban Republican a rural Democrat or vice-versa.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Thu, 10-14-2004 - 11:20pm
I'm not arguing against the existence of states as a whole, but in terms of the election of a president, I think they have an exaggerated importance.

It's not true that a very few states would conrol the outcome of the election, the population of the twenty-five largest cities in the United States is still much smaller than the population of the rest of the country. And those big cities are in several different geographical areas anyway.

<< Ah, when you can't argue against the point argue against something which isn't being stated or in existence.>>

I was essentially saying the same thing, just giving a different example.

You are saying these things like rural areas would have no influence, that is not true, they would have exactly the influence that their population allowed, no more and no less.

As far as looking at the big picture goes, that is exactly what I am doing. My individual based perspective of it, as you put it, gives priority to no single person or area, it treats everyone equally. It is the tricking up of the value of a vote and giving more worth to someone in a certain kind of state that is the "individual based perspective", I am in favor of giving priority to no one.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2004
Thu, 10-14-2004 - 11:29pm


The question is what is "equitable"? Every person may have a different answer to that.



To me the issue of the people of a state does not come in a distant second at all, I'm just for the people of any state having equal power in the influence of their vote, it is not as if anyones vote doesn't count, it is about them all counting the same.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Thu, 10-14-2004 - 11:32pm


No, more like what Gore did in Florida-tried every which way to invalidate Bush's victory, wanted to keep counting and recounting five different ways in hopes of getting a different outcome, but the Supreme Court luckily enforced Florida state law and the election had to be held according to the rules in place prior to the election. In any case, independant recount after independant recount still showed Bush a winner, so I fail to understand what "Bush did" wrong in Florida.